Face-to-Face Still-Face Research Articles

Evaluating the Nature of the Still‐Face Effect in the Double Face‐to‐Face Still‐Face Paradigm Using Different Comparison Groups

The current study explored two possible comparison groups for the double Face‐to‐Face Still‐Face (FFSF) paradigm to evaluate their effects on infant behavior and different hypotheses about the nature of the Still‐Face (SF) effect, an effect not fully understood. Mothers and their 4‐month‐old infants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, a double FFSF group (GroupFFSF, n = 44), a control, semi‐structured play group (GroupStory, n = 46), or a control, unstructured play group (GroupPlay, n = 28). As hypothesized, GroupFFSF infants exhibited the classic SF response (decreased positive affect and gaze to mother; increased negative affect) and GroupPlay infants showed an increase in negative affect over episodes. Contrary to expectations, GroupStory infants displayed a similar, but less intense, pattern of behavior as GroupFFSF. Taken together, the findings indicate that multiple episodes of face‐to‐face play exceeded 4‐month‐olds' regulatory capacities and that infants are sensitive to shared communicative intentions and violations of social expectations, whether these violations are negative or positive in nature.

Social stress regulation in 4-month-old infants: Contribution of maternal social engagement and infants' 5-HTTLPR genotype

BackgroundMaternal behavior and infant 5-HTTLPR polymorphism have been linked to infants' social stress reactivity and recovery at different ages. Nonetheless, Gene×Environment (G×E) studies focusing on early infancy are rare and have led to mixed results. AimTo investigate the contribution of maternal social engagement and infants' 5-HTTLPR polymorphism in predicting infants' negative emotionality in response to a social stressor, namely maternal unresponsiveness. Study designCross-sectional, G×E study. Subjects73 4-month-old infants and their mothers took part to the Face-to-Face Still-Face (FFSF) procedure. Outcome measuresA micro-analytical coding of negative emotionality was adopted to measure infants' reactivity to social stress (Still-Face episode) and infants' recovery after social stress (Reunion episode). Maternal contribution was measured as maternal social engagement during the Play episode. Infants were genotyped as S-carriers or L-homozygotes. ResultsThe interplay between maternal social engagement and infants' genotype was found to be predictive of infants' negative emotionality during both Still-Face and Reunion episodes of the FFSF paradigm. The interaction highlighted that maternal social engagement predicted minor negative emotionality during Still-Face and Reunion episodes for S-carrier infants, but not for L-homozygotes. ConclusionsFindings extend previous results on adults and children, highlighting that maternal behavior might be a protective factor for stress reactivity and regulation, especially for S-carrier infants who are at risk for heightened stress susceptibility.

A categorical approach to infants’ individual differences during the Still-Face paradigm

Cluster analysis was used to create patterns of individual differences reflecting infant behaviors during the initial interaction episode of the Face-to-Face Still-Face (FFSF) paradigm. The clusters were used as the basic unit of analysis for studying infant and maternal behavior and dyadic coordination (i.e., matching and reparation) across FFSF. Seventy-five 4-month-old infants participated with their mothers. Cluster analysis identified three patterns: a Socially Engaged cluster (33%) exhibited high levels of social engagement with their mothers; a Disengaged cluster (60%) showed a tendency to be low in social interaction and a Negatively Engaged cluster (7%) showed high negative emotionality. During the Still-Face episode, the Socially Engaged cluster reacted by reducing focus on their mother and shifting their attention elsewhere, while infants in the Disengaged cluster reduced focus on the environment. Although both the Socially Engaged and Disengaged clusters increased in negative emotionality during the Still-Face, the Socially Engaged group largely recovered during the Reunion, whereas the Disengaged group displayed more negative emotion. The Negatively Engaged cluster demonstrated high levels of negative affect throughout the entire procedure. Mothers of Negatively Engaged infants showed less positive engagement and more social monitoring than mothers in other clusters during all episodes. Dyadic interaction differed between groups, with greater levels of matching and reparations in the engaged group, less in the Disengaged group, and very little coordination in the Negatively Engaged cluster. Findings highlight the role of distinctive patterns of infants’ individual differences in determining early dyadic functioning.

A dynamic system analysis of dyadic flexibility and stability across the Face-to-Face Still-Face procedure: Application of the State Space Grid

The Face-to-Face Still-Face (FFSF) paradigm allows to study the mother–infant dyad as a dynamic system coping with social stress perturbations. The State Space Grid (SSG) method is thought to depict both flexibility and stability of the dyad across perturbations, but previous SSG evidence for the FFSF is limited. The main aims were: (1) to investigate mother–infant dyadic flexibility and stability across the FFSF using the SSG; (2) to evaluate the influence of dyadic functioning during Play on infant Still-Face response and of infant stress response in affecting dyadic functioning during Reunion. Forty 4-month-old infants and their mothers were micro-analytically coded during a FFSF and eight SSG dyadic states were obtained. Dyadic flexibility and attractor states were assessed during Play and Reunion. Infants’ stress response was coded as negative engagement during the Still-Face episode. Two dyadic states, “maternal hetero-regulation” and “affective mismatch”, showed significant changes in the number of visits from Play to Reunion. During Play “maternal positive support to infant play” emerged as attractor state, whereas during Reunion a second attractor emerged, namely “affective mismatch”. Dyadic affective mismatch during Play correlated with infants’ negative engagement during Still-Face, whereas infants’ response to Still-Face resulted in minor social matching during Reunion. Findings provide new insights into the flexible, yet stable, functioning of the mother–infant dyad as a dynamic system. Evidence of a reciprocal influence between dyadic functioning and infant social stress response are discussed.

Infant Resilience to the Stress of the Still‐Face

Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) is related to infant emotion regulation and resilience. However, few studies have examined RSA of infants and mothers during a stressful experience. Even fewer studies have measured infant and mother skin conductance (SC), which in part reflects anxiety. This pilot study examined RSA, heart rate (HR), and SC patterns of 12 five-month-old infants and their mothers during normal interaction and a stressful perturbation of the interaction in which the mother does not respond to her infant-the Face-to-Face Still-Face (FFSF) paradigm. Dyads were grouped into four categories by two conditions: whether the infant protested to the Still-Face episode (SF) and whether they "recovered" from the SF by reducing protest when the mother resumed interaction in the Reunion (RE). Infants who recovered from the SF had the largest increase in RSA from SF to RE. Mothers of infants who recovered from the SF showed a decrease in RSA during the RE, suggesting mobilization of infant soothing behaviors. Mothers of infants who did not recover from the SF showed physiologic markers of anxiety in the form of continued increases in RSA and high levels of SC. Furthermore, these mothers behaved in a manner that was not responsive to their infant's disengagement cues. These pilot results demonstrate the feasibility of measuring infant SC, a measure long disregarded in infant research. The findings suggest that maternal psychophysiology may be related to infant resilience and suggest a bidirectional effect of maternal and infant reactivity.

More Than Maternal Sensitivity Shapes Attachment

The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate the effect of a set of factors from multiple levels of influence: infant temperament, infant regulatory behavior, and maternal sensitivity on infant's attachment. Our sample consisted of 48 infants born prematurely and their mothers. At 1 and 3 months of age, mothers described their infants' behavior using the Escala de Temperamento do Bebé. At 3 months of age, infants' capacity to regulate stress was evaluated during Tronick's Face-to-Face Still-Face (FFSF) paradigm. At 9 months of age, mothers' sensitivity was evaluated during free play using the CARE-Index. At 12 months of age, infants' attachment security was assessed during Ainsworth's Strange Situation. A total of 16 infants were classified as securely attached, 17 as insecure-avoidant, and 15 as insecure-resistant. Mothers of securely attached infants were more likely than mothers of insecure infants to describe their infants as less difficult and to be more sensitive to their infants in free play. In turn, secure infants exhibited more positive responses during the Still-Face. Infants classified as insecure-avoidant were more likely to self-comfort during the Still-Face and had mothers who were more controlling during free play. Insecure-resistant exhibited higher levels of negative arousal during the Still-Face and had mothers who were more unresponsive in free play. These findings show that attachment quality is influenced by multiple factors, including infant temperament, coping behavior, and maternal sensitivity.

Things Still To Be Done on the Still‐Face Effect

Adamson and Frick (2003/this issue) have written a fine and challenging review of the research on the still‐face. Of special value is their placement of the face‐to‐face still‐face (FFSF) paradigm in a historical framework, which permits us to see how much about the still‐face effect and infant functioning we have learned in the past 30 years. Their review led me to think about several issues. First was the issue of whether or not to standardize the FFSF paradigm. Second, Adamson and Frick argue the still‐face put the “infant's reaction in a new interpretive frame,” but it is a reaction that still challenges our “understanding of young infants' social, emotional, and cognitive capacities.” Thus, I would like to discuss explanations of the still‐face effect. Last, I discuss some suggestions for further research. For an elaborated version of this article, additional archival material is located at http:www.infancyarchives.com.